Albert Surminsky v. Her Majesty the Queen (Informal Procedure), [1994] 2 CTC 2098 (Informal Procedure) -- text

Bell, J.T.C.C.:— The issue in this appeal, heard under the informal procedure of the Court, is whether a penalty levied by the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") pursuant to the provisions of subsection 162(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act"), in respect of each of the appellant’s 1989 and 1990 taxation years was properly levied.

Gerard W.A. Richard v. Her Majesty the Queen (Informal Procedure), [1994] 2 CTC 2096 -- text

O'Connor, J.T.C.C.:— This appeal was heard in Ottawa, Ontario on April 15, 1994 pursuant to the informal procedure of this Court. The only issue in this case is whether in his 1991 taxation year the appellant is entitled to deduct room and

Antrex Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1994] 2 CTC 2073, 94 DTC 1529 -- text

Beaubier, J.T.C.C.:—This matter was heard in Toronto, Ontario on March 22 and 23, 1994. It is an appeal pursuant to the General Procedure of this Court. The appellant ("Antrex") called as witnesses Antonio Montemarano, its president and director, and Thomas Hall, C.A.,

Laurence Ginsberg v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1994] 2 CTC 2063, 94 DTC 1430 -- text

Christie, A.C.J.T.C.C.:—The parties agreed in writing to these facts:

I. The appellant filed his returns of income for the 1987 and 1988 taxation years on April 28, 1989. The appellant's return of income for the 1987 taxation year was required to be filed by April 30, 1988.

398827 Ontario Limited and Thomas Craig Moffat v. Minister of National Revenue, [1994] 2 CTC 2047, 94 DTC 1534 -- text

Mogan, J.T.C.C.:— The appeals of Moffat v. The Queen (court file 92-1286), and 398827 Ontario Ltd. v. M.N.R. (court file 90-1253), were heard together on common evidence. In these reasons for

Dimitri Burcevski v. The Minister of National Revenue, [1994] 2 CTC 2040, 94 DTC 1889 -- text

Hamlyn, J.T.C.C.:—The essence of these appeals lies with the taxpayer’s disagreement with the fair market value determined by Revenue Canada on real properties transferred, as well as, in particular whether the appellant had a beneficial interest in two of the

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS